Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-09-28


ana il MAS lot until to-day thst con-
trsry resolution was formed. l have nc
time TO spare nor the taste for newspaper
controversy. Ny Official duties require
my whole etten ion, aud their dischage
is heavy tax upon ny endurance.
While such unfair, unCandid and
gratuitous criticism Is you have
INDUCED might provoke some, it
has disturbed me very little When
the great trusts and responsibilities Of
the new land law d5vOived upon me-
should have been appalled, and disCour-
aged but fer the reflection, that l hsd the
sympathy of 8 vast majority Of the best
men in Texas whose confidence in me
had been so recently expressed 81 the
polls. And the nope OF their approval
ane commentator which they never
Withhold from 8 servant who has been
.9sitbful, made RE willing to accept these
trusts and responsibilities.
That ! have NOT had your sympathy
and certainly have no. hst tor2ssle9ce
or suspension OF Judgment from yCu) is
neither surprise nor annoyance.
To be accused in one sentence (Sse
your letter Of the 2d) OF making law,
and IL the next OF being TOO stup to IN
derstSud and c0nstrue i; u be &C
credited with power and Influence over
the Legislature to shape & law to my
own sweet will, and then Ia be accused
of disregardiGg its provisions is more
amusing thHn annoying.
Twill not consume space by iBquiTiCg in
tOthe motives Of your letter TO the Cover
nor nor Of your letter To NE. | Will
simply state that you are perfectly willing
TO build up your own unsteady fortunes
at the expense Of him or anybody else.
OF this have SIMPLE prOOf-much mere
then your letters furnish. l Will not
alude here to your denial OF my csser-
tion that ''you ls7ored 50 persistentIy 20
mar, mutilate and defestn the new law
''whiIe it was being framed" further than
simply to refer the seeker after truth to
any member of the Twentieth Legislature
who may be IL reach. A referee is
necessary under the circumstances. That
you fervently hope th&t this law shall be
failure is proven to me by the ordinary
laws of ethics aud human nature.
Whether you would be willing to seek
1yfafticatiOn Ct the expense Of your
country must be matter Of speculation,
of course, with sll but yourself.
Will not follow the lengthy account
you give OF your connection with the DILL
which, in substance finally became g law :;
nor would deny you the smallest need
| Of praise for your service and assistance
in securing the adoption of any whole
! some amendment, especially one extend
/ ing Just and equitable rights to the actual
settler, Notwithstanding your efforts in
! his behalf came late in the day and after
! both houses of the Legislature had de-
clared with decisive emphasis that the
settler should not be compelled to subsi-
die the County Surveyor to secure c
home. at this stage OF proceedings you
could we'll afford to do him good turn
without any sacrifice.
| heartily favored the amendment &c
allow the settler 10 purchase within 5
leasehold and restrict him in the number
OF stock he WAS allowed to turn loose
But when you proposed to let him IL
without such restriction thought it IN
Just to the lessee and against the public
interest, for it would have lead TO strife
or made leases impossible. You woult
have allowed men who never owned
plow, who never used hoe, to enter
lease hold, and by paying one-tortieth o
the appraised value of 100 acres, to &C
qnire the right to turn loose g THOUSAND
cattle upon grass for which another wa
paying. Tbs is one time when you at
tempted to "mar' the bill. When yoI
voted for Mr. Garwood's amendment T.
: strike cut the lease clause it was certsin
! Iy an attempt to "mutiIate." But it wa
when You advocated your own bill, intro
dused on January 10, and the House com
4 yr1fttee bill which was the same III sub
stance as to sales, that you made tn
grand effort to "defest."
Did you ever show your bill to an &C
tual settler? Did you ever point out t
T him it's provisions requiring him to 8ppl
to the county or district surveyor TO pur
! chase his home, paying said surveyor
E for the privilege? Ana the further orc
a vision requiring him "if the corners an
boundary lines of the land so applied fo
are not already established and msrke
on the ground" (snd it is rare cas-
. where they are) to "apply to the surveyo
for 6 survey of the same" IT'S true, tn
surveyor was required 10 perform hi
functions so that the settler was not de
barred from the privilege of purchasin
by the surveyors refusal to act, for you
: bill went on 10 provide that sit shall b
: his duty upon payment OF his leg:
: fee to be paid by the applicant to procee
at once 10 survey the land, etc.''
=, This would be ell right if the settler ha
o the money for the surveyor and for the fir
. payment due the sts'e too, but what ii
4 nad not so much? No harm done, for /
referring to section / Of YOU
Dill he would find that he b,
- thirty days in which to mai
, first payment, and in 9 country SO full
:. money making ayocstions he would I'm
- no difficulty in securing employment
:. enable him to meet the demands Of til
9 state; or, if wages were low and mol
than month was required to earn tt
i amount needed, he might hire himself Of
~ for three months (unless he was ne
conner and on his good name get enous
advanced, for by referring to section 8
= your bill he would find that "any persc
purchasing any of said lands shall a
81 tually settle upon and improve the san
II within three months from the date OF
% application to purchase" but not befor
used to wonder while listening
your specious talks before the Hou
Is committee whether you were more iute
II ested in the welfare OF the g
tual settler or Of the county su
veyor. But when l reflected up
the provisions of your bill and I